Dossier 20: A Woman's Place in the Nation: Analyzing the Discourse of the ‘Nation of Islam’

“That was an army of Black men
standing in front of me...They loved the message and they loved the
Messenger,”Minister Louis Farrakhan on the
Million Man March(Arizona Republic, 1996:
6)

“No march,
movement or agenda that defines manhood in the narrowest terms and seeks to make
women lesser partners...can be considered a positive step,” Angela Davis on the Million Man
March(Pooley, E
“To The Beat of His Drum” Time, Vol 143, No. 9, 1994: 2-3).

Riders on the New York City
subway system view a constant flow of people—men, women, occasionally
children—shifting from car to car, making requests. Money for AIDS victims
without health insurance, assistance to disabled Vietnam veterans, support for a
battered woman, homeless, with two kids in tow. Distinct from the down-and-out,
and immediately recognizable, are the African-American men—hair closely cropped,
faces set seriously, impeccably dressed in dark suits and crisp white shirts,
almost eccentrically accentuated by jovial red bow ties—selling The Final Call,
the weekly newspaper of the Nation of Islam (NOI), a Muslim group with nearly a
70-year history in the United States. Their leader is the controversial Minister
Louis Farrakhan, head of the NOI since 1977, a figure on the national political
landscape since the mid-1980s.[1] Now, nearly ten years later, his
name-recognition rate has skyrocketed and he has been, perhaps begrudgingly,
embraced as a man “to be included in the dialogue.” Recently, his ability to
mobilize people for the October 16, 1995 Million Man March (MMM) in Washington,
D.C. made him ever more difficult to ignore.[2]

Farrakhan himself remarked: “I was
surprised when I learned that 44 percent of the men that were there had some
college education. Over 20 percent of those men had businesses; they were
entrepreneurs.. Here’s a black middle class that comes to a march called by a
man who is considered radical, extremist, anti-Semitic, anti-white. What does
that say about the hunger, the yearning, of that black middle class?” (quoted in
Gates, 1996: 150). The NAACP, the largest and oldest civil rights organization
in the United States, did not endorse the MMM, but “many of its leaders and
members enthusiastically participated” (Lusane, 1996: 3). Recently, Benjamin
Chavis, a Christian minister, the former executive director of the NAACP, and a
coordinator of the MMM, joined the Nation of Islam (Chavis, 1997: 3).[3]

Prior to the Million Man March,
Farrakhan was well-known in the U.S. and capable of drawing large crowds.[4] Though
Farrakhan says he does “not wish to have a movement built just on my charisma”
(Arizona Republic, 1996: 10), he does see himself as a very important catalyst
for change in the lives of all black men in the U.S. “ … I believe I am A Jesus,
walking in the footsteps of THE Jesus, I saw that Million Man March in a
scriptural light … I saw my call of Black men, who are the biggest problem in
the country, and their responding to my call as similar to Jesus going to the
tomb of Lazarus, and calling Lazarus out of that tomb …

I am not THE
Messiah, I’m clear on that. But I believe that I am a functionary of His,” he
told interviewers in 1996 (Arizona Republic: 2).[5] He enhances
this perception of his “other worldliness” or “stature” by speaking of himself
in the third person. A 1994 survey of 504 African Americans found that 73% were
familiar with Farrakhan and two-thirds of that 73% viewed him favorably. His
name recognition was higher than any other black political figure except Jesse
Jackson and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Henry, 1994: 2).

Beyond the U.S., Farrakhan
has positioned himself as a self-appointed statesman, carrying the concerns of
constituents overseas in meetings with various African heads of states.[6] His most
publicized relationship has been with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, who pledged
$1 billion in aid to Farrakhan to finance the work of the NOI in the United
States (NOI, Aug. 29, 1996).[7] The U.S.
Treasury Department blocked the gift, denying a request to waive the 1996
Antiterrorism Act which makes financial transaction illegal with countries the
U.S. State Department deems to be supporters of international terrorism.[8]

Given these various realms
of activity, Farrakhan and the NOI, I believe, form a movement that is deserving
of closer scrutiny. In this paper I will analyze the discourse of the Nation of
Islam. I will base my analysis largely on NOI documents and speeches, as well as
interviews with Louis Farrakhan which have appeared in a variety of media
outlets in the United States. After reviewing the history of the group, I will
discuss how the NOI has constructed its own notion of community and what this
means in terms of relationships with others, including other Islamic groups and
the state. To understand the role of the NOI, it is also necessary to summarize
the development of black nationalism in the U.S., the legacy of such ideology,
and the NOI’s place in the chronology of that movement. Finally, I will focus on
the ideal vision of gender roles presented within NOI discourse and specifically
examine how women’s roles include serving as identity markers for the community.
While the organization has achieved a higher profile due to mainstream media
coverage, I believe the implications of their message regarding gender roles has
not been sufficiently discussed. In conclusion, an examination of the context in
which this contemporary movement operates will reveal the possibilities for
acceptance or rejection of the NOI’s message within its target
constituency.

Islam in the U.S.: The
Origins of the NOI

The Nation of Islam was
founded in 1930 by Wali Farad Muhammad (born Wallace D. Fard) a door-to-door
salesman who appeared in Detroit. “On July the Fourth, the day of America’s
Independence celebration, He announced the beginning of His mission which was to
restore and to resurrect His lost and found people, who were identified as the
original members of the Tribe of Shabazz from the Lost Nation of Asia. The lost
people of the original nation of African descent, were captured, exploited, and
dehumanized to serve as servitude slaves of America for over three centuries,”
explains Tynetta Muhammad (1996: 1), wife of Elijah Muhammad, the man who was
the founder’s protégé and assumed leadership of the NOI in 1934, when Fard
mysteriously disappeared.

Fleeing internal power
struggles, Elijah Muhammad moved the group to Chicago (Mamiya, 1983: 251). While
in prison for resisting the World War II draft, Elijah Muhammad realized the
untapped potential of recruiting followers among the prison population. He
successfully pursued this strategy and by 1960 NOI membership had increased from
a mere 8,000 in the 1930s to somewhere between 65,000 and 100,000 (Marable,
1992: 4).[9]

Malcolm Little, a hustler in New
York and Boston, was one of these prison converts. Upon his release in 1952 he
took the name Malcolm X, began preaching at Temple 11 in Boston, and by 1955 was
minister of the NOI’s Temple No. 7 in Harlem. He rose to prominence and became
the public face of the NOI.[10]

Louis Eugene Walcott, a calypso
singer known as “The Charmer,” first heard Elijah Muhammad preach in 1955. A few
months later he heard Malcolm X and went on to become his devoted student. He
became Louis X and in 1957 took over at Temple 11 (Gates, 1996: 141-142).
Regarding his conversion, Farrakhan explains: “I wasn’t looking for a change in
religion. I wanted a change in the status of black people” (quoted in Gates,
1996: 149). Meanwhile, civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP and CORE,
concerned that the rhetoric of the Muslim group aided the cause of white
supremacists, denounced the NOI, some even suggesting similarities between the
NOI and earlier European fascism (Marable, 1992: 5).

By 1962 Malcolm X had
become the NOI’s principal spokesperson. But his increasing focus on
contemporary political issues posed a threat to the autocratic Elijah
Muhammad.[11] In 1963 he
was confronted by the hypocrisy of Elijah Muhammad—two secretaries filed
paternity suits against the married NOI leader, who preached a monogamous
marriage-based code of ethics, and though he admitted he had fathered four
children as a result of these extramarital affairs, no sanctions were issued
(Marable 1992: 6).

In 1964 Malcolm X broke
with the NOI, while Louis Farrakhan remained a devoted follower of Elijah
Muhammad. Farrakhan denounced his former teacher, saying that “Such a man as
Malcolm is worthy of death” (Gates, 1996: 142). Farrakhan became Elijah
Muhammad’s top representative (Gates, 1996: 142). Malcolm X, meanwhile, became
El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, took up an anti-racist, anti-capitalist line,[12] formed
Muslim Mosque Incorporated and a few months later the Organization of
Afro-American Unity (OAAU).[13] In 1965
Malcolm X was assassinated at an OAAU rally. Three NOI followers were convicted
in connection with the murder.[14]

Elijah Muhammad died in 1975 and
surprisingly leadership of the NOI went to his son, Wallace Deen Muhammad. He
who had sided with Malcolm X in the 1960s, had questioned the teachings of his
father, preferring the teachings of Sunni Islam instead, and had actually been
thrown out of the NOI (Gates, 1996: 142). He immediately began to transform the
group,[15] declaring
that “there will be no such category as a white Muslim or a black Muslim. All
will be Muslims. All children of God” (quoted in Mamiya, 1983: 249) and changed
his own name to Warith Deen Muhammad, not wanting to be “symbolically” linked to
NOI founder Wallace Fard (Lincoln, 1983: 229). He relaxed the strict
disciplinary rules and dress codes his father had enforced, allowed women to go
out alone at night and encouraged participation in sports, music, voting, and
flew the U.S. flag. Most significantly, he called off the race war his father
had preached as inevitable (Lincoln: 227-228), clearing a path toward courting
more middle class followers, who, as Mamiya suggests, perceived themselves as
“part of the system” (1983: 248-249). Otherwise, he continued to recommend a
lifestyle of hard work and self-betterment for his followers.[16] The name
of the organization was changed to the World Community of Al-Islam in the West
and then, four years later, to the American Muslim Mission (Lincoln:
228).

In 1977,
Farrakhan left to establish a new Nation of Islam, promising a revival of the
original teachings of Wallace Fard and Elijah Muhammad. He took with him many
members of the highly trained elite paramilitary group, known as the Fruit of
Islam (FOI), that Warith Deen had disbanded.[17] In the
1980s and ‘90s the FOI have been deployed in various capacities—as bodyguards
for prominent individuals and as private security forces hired to help stamp out
illegal drug trade in public housing complexes.[18]

This schism lead other established
Muslim groups in the U.S. to recognize Warith Deen’s group, dismissing the NOI
as not representative of “real” Islam and disseminators of misleading
information on Islamic ideology.[19]

“The Black Muslims of the ‘Nation
of Islam,’ with their notion of Black supremacy, ‘were not Muslims at all by any
definition of the word at first,’ but have recently adopted real Islam and in
1976 fasted Ramadan for the first time. Now they are known as Bilalians, named
for the Ethiopian who was the meuzzin for the Prophet Muhammad at the mosque in
Medina. They are the ‘World Community of Islam in the West’ with Imam Warith
Deen Muhammad as their head. He is also leader of their American Muslim Mission
… ,” writes Lovell in her overview of Islam in the United States (1983: 103,
with references to Kettani, 1977).

“The original Black Muslim
movement had basic beliefs that did not conform with Orthodox Islam,” she
writes. “There were: There is one God, called Allah, and Elijah Muhammad is His
last Messenger; Allah appeared to Elijah Muhammad in the person of Master
Wallace Fard Muhammad in Detroit in July 1930; and God is not a spirit, but a
man. They also believed that heaven and hell are on earth at this time, that
there is no life after death. Seven daily prayers and fasting during the month
of December were other religious requirements.”

While requirements
regarding fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers do differ, it is in granting Elijah
Muhammad the status of prophet that the NOI parts company with most other U.S.
Muslim groups.[20] Mustafa
Malik, director of research of the American Muslim Council says, “to be a
Muslim, you have to believe that there is only one God and Muhammad is his last
Prophet. The Nation of Islam people believe that Elijah Muhammad is the last
Prophet. There is nothing in common except that we call ourselves Muslims and
they call themselves Muslims” (quoted in Henry, 1994: 3).

M. Amir Ali, of the
Institute of Information & Education, also finds this deviation from Muslim
ideology troubling. “Elijah Muhammad was a ‘Messenger of Allah.’ Are there any
more messengers or prophets to come?” he asks (Ali: 1). The Institute of Islamic
Information & Education, located in Chicago, makes it their business to
disseminate what they perceive to be “true and correct information about Islam …
taking corrective action for the removal of misinformation and false perceptions
which exist in the American society about Islam and Muslims.” The NOI does not
practice the Islamic religion, they say, but “Farrakhanism.”

“Such religion should be
considered a pseudo Islamic cult,” writes Ali in his “Comparison Between Islam
and Farrakhanism” which echoes Lovell’s critique of the NOI, detailing 12 major
instances where the tenets of “Farrakhanism” contradict Islamic beliefs. “In
America there are many pseudo-Islamic cults, Farrakhanism being one of them. An
honest attitude on the part of such cults should be not to call themselves
Muslims and their religion Islam. Such an example of honesty is Bahaism which is
an off-shoot of Islam, but Bahais do not call themselves Muslims nor their
religion, Islam” (Ali: 3).[21]

“Elijah Muhammad … outraged true
Muslims with his statement that ‘Every white man knows his time is up,” writes
Lovell. “Therefore, it is easy to see why, as recently as 10 years ago, Muslims
in America considered the Blacks a great danger to Islam and to themselves. One
can also understand how the changes urged by Malcolm X caused the schism … ”
(1983: 104).

It
is the NOI’s portrayal of the creation and destruction of the world, with its
significant focus on the issue of race, that seems to be unique and thus highly
contentious for other Muslims in the U.S.

Farrakhan, citing Elijah
Muhammad, states that black people are the “original people of the earth. Out of
us came all other races” (1996e: 1). The tone is more a science fiction story of
gene-splicing and hybrid peoples along the lines of Frankenstein’s monster, than
a theory of evolution. Elijah Muhammad teaches that it was a renegade black
scientist named Yakub who, in defiance of Allah, created the white race nearly
7,000 years ago. The world has been in decline ever since. The fall of white
rule is prophesied (Gates, 1996: 144, 163-4). Elijah Muhammad explained that
America, the “unjust” world created by whites, is “number one on God’s list to
be destroyed,” because of their mistreatment of blacks (Farrakhan, 1996a: 2).[22] The
destruction prophesized involves a $ 15 billion giant “Motherplane” or UFO (as
Farrakhan says whites would term it) built by Japanese scientist, laden with
bombs. “The final act of destruction will be that Allah will make a wall out of
the atmosphere over and around North America.” A fire will burn for 310 years,
and not cool off for another 690. America can be saved[23] by
changing “her way of thinking” and embracing a “righteous code of conduct”
(Farrakhan, 1996a: 2-4). Interestingly, the immoral “America” that needs to be
disciplined is feminized—referred to as “she”. The vehicle of destruction—”a
motherplane”—also could be interpreted as conjuring up feminine, though more
maternal, power).

Farrakhan often quotes the
Bible, perhaps taking from Christianity to connect with a wider audience. Ali
notes that the writings of the NOI place contradictory emphasis on the Qur’an
and the Bible. “On one side, … Believe in the Holy Qur’an and in the scriptures
of all the Prophets of God, and on the other side, We, the original nation of the earth …
are the writers of the Bible and Qur’an. We make such history once every 25,000
years … it is done by twenty-four of our scientists … Both the present Bible and
the Holy Qur’an must soon give way to the Holy Book … ” (Ali:
2)

Black Nationalism

Manning Marable explains
that “black nationalism as a political and social tradition would include
certain characteristics. First, the advocacy of black cultural pride and the
integrity of the group, which implicitly rejects racial integration. Secondly,
an identification with the image of Africa which includes the advocacy by many
of immigration or at least extensive contacts between Africans abroad and at
home. There must be interaction, black nationalists would advocate, between
African Americans, people of African descent in the Caribbean, and Africans on
the continent of Africa itself. Third, black nationalism means the construction
of all-black social institutions such as self-help agencies, schools and
religious organizations and support for group economic advancement, such as
black cooperatives, Buy Black campaigns, and efforts to promote capital
formation within the African American community. Finally, black nationalism has
also meant historically political independence from the white-dominated
political system and support for the creation of all-black political
organizations and protest formations” (1992: 3). Pinkney cites three elements
which form the basis of contemporary black nationalism: “unity, pride in
cultural heritage and autonomy” (1976: 7).

The NOI’s “The Muslim
Program,” is made up of a ten-item list of “What Muslims Want” and 12 points
detailing “What Muslims Believe”. Item #4, on this list of “wants” states the
nationalist goals of the NOI:

We want our people in
America whose parents or grandparents were descendants from slaves, to be
allowed to establish a separate state or territory of their own—either on this
continent or elsewhere. We believe that our former slave masters are obligated
to provide such land and that the area must be fertile and minerally rich. We
believe that our former slave masters are obligated to maintain and supply our
needs in this separate territory for the next 20 to 25 years—until we are able
to produce and supply our own needs (NOI: 1).

Not only is there a
territorial component, implying racial separation, in the NOI’s nationalist
ideology, but there is also a cultural aspect. During his MMM address, Farrakhan
called upon the audience to support “African-centered independent schools” which
would ensure that children receive a “culturally-rooted education” (MMM Mission
Statement: 15). This is also discussed in “What Muslims Want”: “We want all
black children educated, taught and trained by their own teachers” (NOI, “The
Muslim Program”: 2). One of Farrakhan’s standing demands to the government,
outlined in the same document, has been that “all necessary text books and
equipment, schools and college buildings” should be provided free of charge.
“The Muslim teachers shall be left free to teach and train their people in the
way of righteousness, decency and self respect” (p. 2).[24]

The nationalist agenda of the NOI
is in direct opposition to integrationist beliefs.[25] Item #9 of
“What Muslims Believe” explains:

We believe that the offer
of integration is hypocritical and is made by those who are trying to deceive
the black peoples into believing that their 400-year-old open enemies of
freedom, justice and equality are, all of a sudden, their “friends.”
Furthermore, we believe that such deception is intended to prevent black people
from realizing that the time in history has arrived for the separation from the
whites of this nation (NOI: 3).

“The integrationist idea
was that the American racial caste system would be replaced with civil and
political equality only through racial integration of schools, neighborhoods,
and businesses, rather than—as a competing nationalist conception argued—through
a strategy focused at least initially on building strong, autonomous Black
institutions,” writes Eugene F. Rivers, a fellow at Harvard Divinity School, on
the two competing strategies (1995: 3-4). “To the Black middle class, this dream
has had a measure of reality. For the Black poor in northern cities, integration
was always hopelessly irrelevant. Nationalist critics understood that
irrelevance; they predicted that the project would fail because of intense White
resistance. They turned out to be right.” Rivers suggests that it is the failure
of integration that has facilitated the rise of such leaders as Farrakhan, whom
he dismisses as a representative of a “nationalism of fools.”[26]

The NOI’s call for black
nationalism as the remedy to black’s socio-economic ills is not the first such
prescription. Black nationalism in the U.S. reaches far back into the very roots
of U.S. history.

“As a movement black
nationalism has evolved through several stages, including colonization,
emigration, internal statism, and cultural pluralism,” writes Alphonso Pinkney
(1976: 3-4). “These are the means blacks in the United States have advocated to
achieve self-determination and ultimate liberation. The movement has never been
able to attract a majority of blacks to its ranks, yet it has persisted through
the centuries.”

Martin R. Delany, a
Harvard-trained physician and grandson of slaves, first opposed resettlement of
U.S. blacks in Africa, instead preferring the West Indies, Central and South
America.[27] Later, in
an 1852 publication, he called for the formation of an “autonomous black state
in East Africa to which Afro-Americans could migrate” and eventually rallied
blacks with the slogan “Africa for the Africans,” negotiating for the emigration
of blacks to West Africa in the mid-1850s, before becoming caught up in domestic
political and business ventures (Pinkney: 23-27). After Delany’s death in 1885,
Bishop Henry M. Turner of the African Methodist Episcopal [AME] Church[28] became the
next leader of the movement for the “repatriation” of U.S. blacks to
Africa.

“He
constantly exhorted blacks to go ‘home to Africa’, usually in the pages of the
Christian Recorder, the AME weekly newspaper” (Pinkney: 30). He supported the
bill introduced into Congress to provide transport for any African-Americans
wishing to leave the south of the U.S. to relocate to another country (it never
came to vote) and founded the Voice of Missions, which became the organ of the
emigration movement. He visited Africa several times and in 1894 founded the
International Migration Society whose mission was “to accelerate the emigration
of blacks to Liberia” (Pinkney: 31, 33). By the turn of the century both the
society and the newspaper had gone out of business. “By 1906, after many
failures and little success, Bishop Turner ‘lost interest in the project and
became deeply involved with local politics, trying to stop Georgia from
disfranchising [sic] her black citizens’” (Redkey, 1917, cited in Pinkney:
35).

Perhaps
most well-known in the pantheon of black nationalist men is the Jamaican-born
Marcus Garvey, who founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) in
1914 with the following aim: “To establish a Universal Confraternity among the
race; to promote the spirit of pride and love; to reclaim the fallen; to
administer to and assist the needy; to assist in civilizing the backward tribes
of Africa; to assist in the development of Independent Negro nations and
communities; to establish a central nation for the race, where they will be
given the opportunity to develop themselves … ” (A.J. Garvey, 1970, cited in
Pinkney: 43).[29]

Garvey came to the U.S. in 1916 at
the age of 28. Four years later at the month-long UNIA-organized International
Convention of the Negro Peoples of the World held in NYC (reportedly attended by
25,000 delegates from 25 countries) he was elected provisional president of
Africa (Pinkney: 45).

“We believe in the freedom
of Africa for the Negro people of the world, and by the principle of Europe for
the Europeans and Asia for the Asiatics; we also demand Africa for the Africans
at home and abroad,” stated article 13 of the Declaration of Rights of the Negro
Peoples of the World. “It is only a question of a few more years when Africa
will be completely colonized by Negroes, as Europe is by the white race. What we
want is an independent African Nationality … It is hoped that when the time
comes for Americans and West Indian Negroes to settle in Africa, they will
recognize their responsibility and their duty,” said Garvey, clarifying his
viewpoint on territoriality (quoted in Pinkney, 1976: 46).[30]

Garvey opposed race-mixing, calling
for racial purity and deeming “mulattoes” undesirables (Pinkney: 47-48). “I am
conscious of the fact that slavery brought upon us the curse of many colors
within the Negro race, but there is no reason why we ourselves should perpetuate
the evil.”[31]

According to Marable, “the Nation
of Islam was the dominant black nationalist formation during the period after
the Garvey black nationalist movement of the 1920s through to the black power
insurgence of the 1960s” (1992: 4). The contemporary phase of black nationalism
in the U.S. was ushered in by the black power movement in the mid-1960s.[32] Cultural nationalism, often associated
with the work of Amiri Baraka and Ron Karenga in the ‘60s and early ‘70s, took
up a more prominent role. At the time, Baraka dismissed Black Panthers as
“violent integrationists”—leftists in service of a “white revolution” (Pinkney,
1976: 147). Karenga explained that “there must be a cultural revolution before
the violent revolution. The cultural revolution gives identity, purpose, and
direction” (quoted in Pinkney: 147).

Capitalism and the
State

Marable
outlines two strains of black nationalism in the U.S. —conservative and
revolutionary. Conservatives “emphasized African cultural values and supported
frequently private economic market mechanisms for group advancement. In other
words, they advocated a kind of black capitalism,” he explains. “Revolutionary
black nationalism concludes that ‘yes, we are an African people and we can unite
culturally with our sisters and brothers abroad, but we should also unite
politically with them in overthrowing imperialism, overthrowing Western
colonialism’ … radical black nationalists recognized that institutional racism
has evolved in direct conjunction with the development and maturation of
capitalism in the Western hemisphere over the last four centuries, that it
provides the ideological and cultural justification for the continued
exploitation and oppression of black people wherever they may be. So therefore
the revolutionary nationalists said it is not enough to fight against racism.
You also had to denounce capitalism as well” (1992: 4).[33]

Prior to his death, Malcolm X
questioned capitalism and came to view economic and social questions in an
international context, leading to a denunciation of imperialism and an approach
that embraced international solidarity, not isolationist nationalism. “It is
impossible for capitalism to survive, primarily because the system of capitalism
needs some blood to suck. Capitalism used to be like an eagle, but now it’s more
like a vulture … ” he said in 1965.

Regarding emigration of
U.S. blacks to Africa, he said in 1964 “ … what I mean by migration or going
back to Africa— back in the sense that we reach out to them and they reach out
to us. Our mutual understanding and our mutual effort toward a mutual objective
will bring benefit to the African as to the Afro-American. But you will never
get it relying on Uncle Sam alone. You are looking in the wrong direction”
(quoted in Pinkney, 1976: 74-75).

In his MMM statement,
Farrakhan spelled out his feelings about the U.S. Government:

Historically, the U.S.
Government has participated in one of the greatest holocausts of human history,
the Holocaust of African Enslavement. It sanctioned with law and gun the
genocidal process that destroyed millions of human lives, human culture, and the
human possibility inherent in African life and culture. It has yet to
acknowledge this horrific destruction or to take steps to make amends for
it.

Moreover,
even after the Holocaust, racist suppression continued, destroying lives,
communities and possibilities. And even now, members of the government are
pushing the country in a regressive rightwing direction, reversing hard won
gains, blaming the victims, punishing the vulnerable and pandering to the worst
of human emotions.

We thus call on the
government of the United States to atone for the historical and current wrongs
it has committed against African people and other people of color … the
government must:

publicly admit its role and
role of the country in the Holocaust; publicly apologize for it;

publicly recognize its
moral meaning to us and humanity through establishing institutions and
educational processes which preserve memory of it, teach the lessons and horror
of its history and stress the dangers and destructiveness of denying human
dignity and human freedom; pay reparations; and

discontinue any and all
practices which continue its effects or threaten its repetition.

We call on the government
to also atone for its role in criminalizing a whole people, for its policies of
destroying, discrediting, disrupting and otherwise neutralizing Black
leadership, for spending more money on imprisonment than education, and on
weapons of war than social development, for dismantling regulations that
restrained corporations in their degradation of the environment and failing to
check a deadly environmental racism that encourages placement of toxic waste in
communities of color. And of course, we call for a halt to all of
this.

Furthermore, we call on the
government to stop undoing hard won gains such as affirmative action, voting
rights and districting favorable to maximum Black political participation; to
provide universal, full and affordable health care; to provide and support
programs for affordable housing; to pass the Conyers Reparations Bill; to repeal
the Omnibus Crime Bill; to halt disinvestment in social development and stop
penalizing the urban and welfare poor and using them as scapegoats; to adopt an
economic bill of rights including a plan to rebuild the wasting cities; to craft
and institute policies to preserve and protect the environment; and to halt the
privatization of public wealth, space and responsibility (1995: 7-9).[34]

Farrakhan’s lack of revolutionary
vision emerges when he is pressed to explain how life will change when and if
the U.S. Government capitulates to his demand for territory. There are vague
plans for black farmers to work the land, create processing plants and
factories, utilize black-organized channels of distribution to transport
products to black supermarkets for purchase by black consumers who will continue
to reside where they currently reside (Gates, 1996: 151). It seems that economic
growth, and adherence to a code of behavior that equates nation-building with
marriage (discussed below) will solve all problems—no structural changes—just
black men getting in on the white man’s action. Indeed, it is deviance from
strict morals that has caused problems in the U.S., according to Farrakhan. He
believes that economic problems are “serious,” but they flow out of a basic
immorality … ” (Arizona Republic, 1996: 4).

Bell Hooks criticizes what
is clearly a conservative nationalism: “When people focus on the white mass
media’s obsession with Louis Farrakhan, they think the media hate Farrakhan so
much. But they don’t hate Farrakhan. They love him. One of the reasons why they
love him is that he’s totally pro-capitalist. Farrakhan’s pro-capitalism
encourages a kind of false consciousness in Black life” (Third World Viewpoint,
1995: 2).

Despite the
nationalist/separatist agenda and the demand for reparations from the U.S.
Government, a certain “patriotism” emerges from Farrakhan’s words. For example,
in an interview last year, he explained that, “The economic leaders, who have
benefited so much from this country, have no sense of patriotism. Patriotism is
not part of corporate America’s modus operandi. When you think more of a dollar
and how you can make your bottom line fatter at the expense of the very nation
that gave you a chance to become rich and powerful, then we have some serious,
serious problems that have to be addressed” (Arizona Republic, 1996: 4). As
well, Farrakhan often proclaims that “America is the greatest nation on earth
and the greatest nation in the last 6,000 years” (see for example, Farrakhan,
1996a: 1).[35] In his
view, the U.S. is still a “superpower” unrivaled throughout the world (Arizona
Republic: 3)

Ideal Vision of Gender
Relations

While the NOI’s request for
“justice,” “freedom,” “equality of opportunity,” and an independent territory
seem to mimic the demands of the despised slaveowning “Founding Fathers of the
United States,” there are also very specific demands regarding women—they are
singled out for “respect” and “protection” (NOI, “The Muslim Program”: 3). The
construction of strict gender roles within their community is spelled out
clearly in a number of NOI documents.

In the ideology of the NOI
men are clearly superior to women. “Allah says in the Qur’an that men are a
degree above women,” Farrakhan explains. “Now, that may hurt feminists. I don’t
want to hurt your feelings. We’re not a degree above you in our condition now,
we’re several degrees below you. But in the nature in which God created you,
brother, he created you a degree above the woman. Otherwise the woman would not
be able to look up to you. Anytime you have a woman that does not look up to
you, brother, you’re in trouble” (1996: 3).[36]

The essential nature of women
reveals the very superiority of men, according to Farrakhan, and attempts by
women to challenge nature—by positioning themselves as leaders or by deviating
from the role that they should realize best suits them—will backfire. They will
create problems for themselves, such as domestic violence. In a sense
“difficult” women get what they deserve in Farrakhan’s view—though they might be
victims of abuse, the abuse is justified by their deviance. In a document
specifically addressing the high incidence of domestic violence, Farrakhan
clarifies his position:

I want to
help you, sisters, understand what you can do for this male who desperately,
wants to become a man and has all the potential to be a great man. Your problem,
sisters, is you really don’t know how to handle today’s Black man.

What is the demand of nature in
the man for you (woman), and what is the demand in the nature of the woman for
the man? The Qur’an teaches, ‘Men are the maintainers of women … ’ … That is a
very weighty statement.

Women
today say, ‘I don’t need a man to maintain me. I’ll maintain myself.’ These are
very independent sisters today. … But, when we start getting away from the
nature in which God created us, we start getting into problems (Farrakhan,
1996d: 2-3).

In the
NOI, a woman’s value is derived by her reproductive capacity, which makes her
sacred. “ … Through her we are extended through the generations,” explains
Farrakhan (1996b, 1). Women are simply the wombs which serve as the incubators
and conduit for the legacy of men:

The Holy Qur’an teaches us that
both male and female have the same essence or come from the essence or being
that is Allah, the All Wise God. He has given both male and female complimentary
natures which, if acted on properly help each mate to attain to fulfilment,
perfect peace, and full development or perfection.

The disrespect of women is the
reason that the … world is in the condition that it is in … She is the
cornerstone of the family and therefore is critical in the whole process of
nation and world building … Allah (God) speaks to us saying that, we should
reverence the womb that bore us … Since, the womb of our mother is sacred, then,
this teaches us that the womb of every female is also sacred, for it is from her
womb that all the Scientists, Prophets, Sages, Messengers, Kings, Rulers and
Gods have come and will come. (Farrakhan, 1996b: 1).[37]

“…Premarital
sex is forbidden,” writes Farrakhan (1996b: 2). But the sex act is acknowledged
as being a natural drive: “Sex is powerful. It is a natural hunger in the male
and the female even as the desire for food and water” but it is only sanctioned
within marriage—it cannot provide the basis for a lasting marriage. “Courtship
is chaperoned” to prevent premarital sex and the U.S. government financed
schools that Farrakhan calls for are to be segregated by gender. Both
precautions are meant to encourage sound, spiritual decision-making when it
comes time to marry (1996b: 3).[38] Again, women who do not heed
these recommendations, bring problems upon themselves:

How many women see themselves and
their wombs as sacred? If the womb is sacred then the passageway through which
the seed of life enters the womb is also sacred … That which is sacred must be
safe and not violated. Women all over the earth, due to an improper view of self
have violated themselves and allowed men and society to violate them. (emphasis
added, Farrakhan, 1996b: 2).

Echoing Garvey’s rhetoric, NOI
guidelines declare “We believe that intermarriage or race mixing should be
prohibited” (NOI, “The Muslim Program”: 2). Due to their reproductive role,
women mark the boundaries of the community. As NOI identity markers, women are
to be protected and fought over because to gain access to the women is to
penetrate the boundaries of the community, to take control of the channel
through which the new generations of “believers” will be brought forth. As
Farrakhan explains:

A man
should die before he lets a stranger contaminate his woman. A man should kill.
We ought to be the number one killers on the earth to keep any man away from our
woman. A man is not worth anything if he will not protect the woman that gives
birth to his own nation.

When a white man comes into our
society, he goes to war with that society so that he may have free access to the
woman. He has conquered us as men, and therefore we cannot be to our women what
God commanded us to be until we are made free of the mind and the power of our
enemies that control and dominate our thinking. (Farrakhan, 1996d:
4).

The
building blocks of the NOI are a patriarchal family. “It is written in the Holy
Qur’an that Allah (God) hates divorce,” explains Farrakhan (1996c: 1). “Divorce
goes against the very basic unit of civilization, for divorce breaks up the
family. Where there is no strong family, there is no strong community or
nation.” Farrakhan accuses those who reject these ideals of being traitors to
the nation. Obviously, there is no room for homosexuality within the NOI. Says
Farrakhan: “ … we don’t chase women, we won’t chase men” (emphasis added, 1996e:
2).

A woman
seems to have very little opportunity for self-determination within this
essentialized, biologically-oriented construct—things are done for her, “A man’s
duty to the woman is to preserve, protect and upkeep her and to keep her in the
specified state that God has made her,” Farrakhan here objectifies women to the
point where they sound like little more than automobiles in need of regular
tune-ups and oil-changes (1996: 4).

Sharing Space with the
NOI

Without
question, the most visible critics of the NOI until now have been those who call
into question the anti-Semitism that Farrakhan has espoused. This aspect of NOI
ideology has not been discussed in this paper, not because I find it
unimportant, but because I think this has already been covered by many others.
To summarize briefly: critics focus on Farrakhan’s statement that “Hitler was a
great man” that Judaism is a “dirty religion,” that international
decision-making is controlled by a “cabal” of Jews, and the NOI publication of
the incendiary text The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews. In
response, Farrakhan says he is misunderstood and misquoted. Recently, he claimed
Jewish ancestry (Gates, 1996: 143).[39]

Much has also
been written by whites in response to the “white devil” rhetoric of some black
nationalist movements. Indeed, blacks who still favor an integrationist strategy
have also challenged the separatist aspect of NOI ideology. But very little has
been written about the patriarchal nature of gender relations championed by
Farrakhan and his followers. Why?

U.S. politicians in general have
placed the blame for social and economic problems on the breakdown of
patriarchal families. Woefully contrasting the “good-ole days” with the
contemporary lack of interest in so-called “traditional family values” is a
familiar refrain mouthed by politicians—Republican, Democratic, black, white,
male and female alike. Witness, for example, the debate that prefaced the
passage of the August 1996 welfare “reform” legislation.[40] This discourse constructed
(and officially legislated) the ideal woman in the U.S. as heterosexual,
married, virgin until marriage and marginalized and economically damned if she
demonstrates deviance. Farrakhan’s ideology is based on gendered norms of
behavior largely in sync with what could be termed the dominant white capitalist
ideology in the U.S. (or at the very least in sync with its embodied
representatives who fill the Congress and White House).

Though the gendered aspect of
Farrakhan’s message meets with U.S. government approval, how much resonance does
such a message, which champions such gender roles, have within black
communities? Is deviance from a subservient role as dutiful wife and mother
perceived as a problem or a strength? Is it tolerable or unacceptable behavior
for a black woman living in the context of the U.S. in the 1990s? Social and
economic indicators don’t tell the complete story of the experience of black
people in the U.S., but can offer an overview of the context into which a cry
for male-headed households and stay-at-home moms is being issued.

Though only 13% of the total
population in the U.S. is categorized as “black”, black men make up 43% of the
prison population, 37% of AFDC recipients in 1994 were black (Hansby, 1996: 6;
Bilens, 1996; 602). In 1993 more than 58% of black households were headed by
women, in 1991 68% of births took place outside of marriage (Hacker, 1995: 102).
Single mothers are alternatively portrayed as the saviors or the downfall of
black communities. Some politicians, with newspaper op-ed writers sounding off
approvingly, call for the deployment of court-ordered birth control (Norplant)
as a weapon to fight black poverty and crime (Hartmann, 1995: 211, Yuval-Davis,
1996: 20).

Because
of Affirmative Action policies created to remedy sexist and racist hiring
practices by stipulating hiring quotas for blacks and women, some black men have
suggested that black women have benefited more, by fulfilling two categories at
once, at the expense of black men (Washington, 1995: 153). Hooks notes that this
ignores “the reality that this acceptance (when it occurs) is rooted in the
assumption that black females can be more easily subordinated and subjugated
than their black male counterparts … for years conservative black males have
insisted that the black female’s proximity to whiteness is always an advantage.
They refuse to look at the ways this closeness has resulted in exploitation and
abuse” (1995b: 96).

Meanwhile, the strength of black women in the face of
racial oppression and their ability to navigate a path through daily life (to
“bargain with patriarchy” as Kandiyoti would say) has been turned around by some
to be the very cause of problems for black men.

“Two major traditional masculine
roles are providing for and protecting the members of their households. The
double-digit unemployment rates of black males for most of the last two decades
reflect the special difficulties black men face in serving as both providers and
protectors. Deprived of these roles, black males have frequently behaved in
asocial, if not pathological, ways. The feminist movement’s effort to redefine
male roles has hardly alleviated this problem, or the issue of powerlessness
among black men; indeed, it has confused, stultified, and alienated them” writes
Kenneth Tollett, Sr., lawyer and Distinguished Professor of Higher Education at
Howard University (1995: 165).[41] The “key to the
reconstruction of the black family, and the socio-economic re-integration of the
black community” in his view is to “achieve full employment for black
males.”

As Rita
Williams notes, “It’s an American tradition to blame Mom for everything from
athlete’s foot to impotence, but the perpetual focus on the overbearing black
female obscures the profound trauma both daughters and sons experience
concerning Dad” (1995: 133). Hooks agrees: “Many black males and even some black
females believe the crisis would be resolved if black women would simply accept
to subordinate status irrespective of whether black males worked or not” (1995a:
66).

Feminism
in general, continues to be loudly derided by a significant contingent of black
male intellectuals in the United States: Take for example the sentiments of
writer Ishmael Reed, professor of English at the University of California at
Berkeley, who scoffs at feminists in academia:

it’s decadent for some black
feminists who are rolling in handsome academic salaries and extravagant
honorariums to complain about their double oppression while thousands of black,
white, brown, and yellow women and their children panhandle in the streets all
over the United States. What have the Black Divas who barter their double
oppression and who make enormous honorariums on the lecture and reading circuit
done for these women? What has the feminist movement done for poor women at all?
… I suspect that gender relationships are not as big an issue among ordinary
blacks as they are among college people, because on the street level black men
and women realize that both genders are catching hell (Reed 1995: 119).[42]

Nathan Hare,
head of The Black Think Tank and founder of The Black Scholar, which he edited
from 1969-1975, is of the opinion that “black feminists have not contributed one
major original idea to feminism other than the predictable reports that white
feminists are ‘racists’ too” (1995: 126). White feminists meanwhile, are, in his
view, responsible for bringing “down every black male effort to rise” including
“The Nation of Islam’s current effort to hold black males-only meetings as well
as black females-only meetings” (1995: 128).

Historically, the black liberation
movement in the U.S. has been dominated by men who have not considered the
gendered aspect of oppression. “Black men did not see themselves as oppressors
of their women but as the victims of white America,” writes Elsie Washington
(1995: 154). “For the most part, they berated the Women’s Lib Movement as an
activity of spoiled white women,” writes Washington. She notes that:

In Martin Luther King, Jr’s
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, in the NAACP, the Urban League, and
the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), black men held the leadership positions
that set policy and decided on strategy. The feeling of black men, and some
black women, within and outside the organizations was that it was important for
men to be in the forefront, to assert themselves as leaders in a manner that
emulated the larger, white society. A lot of black men in the Civil Rights and
Black Power movements considered that women were ‘rewards’ for soldiers ‘on the
front lines’ and that women existed to have sex and to perform domestic duties.
A popular saying, attributed to Stokely Carmichael (now Kwame Toure) to the
effect that ‘the best position for women [in the struggle] is prone,’ is a ready
example (1995: 151).

Embracing
feminist ideology, a “white” ideology, therefore is akin to being a race
traitor. Take for example Tollet, who sees feminists as responsible for undoing
the accomplishments of black men. Intellectuals (black and white), says Tollet,
are “under the undue influence of feminists” and cites such examples of this
negative impact as the Thomas-Hill hearings, as well as the ouster of Chavis
from the NAACP (see note #3). “ … Many black women have bolstered their
positions by identifying with feminism, constructing Sisterhood against both
black and white males,” writes Tollet (1995: 166). “Furthermore, some
progressive black writers show signs of submergence in the white world of
radical gynecentrism or feminism. Feminist adherents frequently and
ritualistically bash males, pandering to female jingoist interests” (1995:
167-168).

On the
allure of heterosexist norms, such as those the NOI would see strengthened,
Hooks notes that: “The rhetoric of nationalism is totally homophobic, and to the
degree that contemporary Black people are engaged in escapist, non-political,
non-revolutionary fantasies of nationalism and the patriarchal family, we are
more aggressively homophobic than the larger culture where there are a lot of
white liberals and leftists who are not interested in nationalism” (Third World
Viewpoint, 1995: 5).

Indeed,
Hooks also points to the confirmation hearings of black Supreme Court nominee
Clarence Thomas, in which he defended himself against a black female colleague’s
accusations of sexual harassment, as a revealing episode:

It is the intense collective
sexism of African American men and women that has relegated the gender crisis in
black relations to the status of an unimportant agenda—until white patriarchy
turned the spotlight on the issue. Suddenly, the Thomas hearings motivated
masses of black men (and some women) who daily turn a deaf ear to gender issues
to enter the discussion … They came armed with the rhetoric of an anti-feminist
backlash, without even taking the time to study and consider either the
destructive impact of patriarchal thinking in black life or to contemplate
whether or not conversion to feminist politics might be a constructive way to
address this crisis” (1995b: 93).

What emerges is a perception that
the plight of black men is more deserving of attention than that of black women.
“ … There is an almost fascistic insistence in the African community to put
aside one’s process of individualization for the supposed good of the race. This
is particularly true for many women,” writes Williams (1995: 1995: 133). Hooks
characterizes this as “an endless, meaningless debate about who has suffered
more” (1995b: 98).

According
to Derrick Bell, a prominent New York University law professor, “feminist
critiques of ‘power relations’ must first confront the continuing powerlessness
of black males” (cited in Tollet, emphasis added, 1995: 168).

The prioritizing of male struggles
over female, in the hierarchy of concerns, coincides with Farrakhan’s view that
men lead and maintain women and that powerful women, who deviate from a
subservient role, create problems instead of viable alternatives that lead to
solutions.

Conclusion

Given an environment which
denigrates the strategies of black women to survive and succeed, instead
suggesting that if given the chance, men could “do it better,” it seems
surprising that the patriarchal component of the NOI’s message has not been
widely attacked, beyond recognition that the Million Man March was a
male-centered event. Ignoring the link between the NOI and other patriarchal
groups, and placing Farrakhan’s rhetoric completely in the realm of radical
outsider views that challenge the current social order is a mistake. Perhaps
this occurs because the NOI draws its members from within a minority population,
currently with limited political influence, whereas the conservative Christian
Right, for example, is dominated by whites mainlined into the already
established (majority) power structures. In fact, there are striking
similarities between the white Christian Right, frequently labelled a
fundamentalist movement, and the NOI. The question remains—can we consider the
NOI a fundamentalist group? I believe the answer is yes.

“Fundamentalist movements, all
over the world, are basically political movements which have a religious
imperative and seek in various ways, in widely differing circumstances, to
harness modern state and media powers to the service of their gospel,” explain
Sahgal and Yuval-Davis (1992: 4). “This gospel is presented as the only valid
form of religion. It can rely heavily on sacred religious texts, but it can also
be more experiential and linked to specific charismatic leadership … It can
appear as a form of orthodoxy—a maintenance of ‘traditional values’—or as a
revivalist radical phenomenon, dismissing impure and corrupt forms of religion
to ‘return to original sources,’” Sahgal and Yuval-Davis note that such
movements have “often been incorporated into and transformed nationalist
movements” (1992: 2).

As I have
demonstrated, the NOI message is nationalist and constructs a “traditional past”
firmly based on a control of women’s sexuality in the guise of religious gospel.
This gospel, spouted from the mouth of a charismatic leader, is offered up as
the remedy for a deteriorating society. For example, the NOI emphasizes that “We
know that the above plan for the solution of the black and white conflict is the
best and only answer to the problem between people” (emphasis added, NOI, “The
Muslim Program,” p. 1). “Scientists,” more modern players than traditional, are
linked by Farrakhan to the introduction of a corrupt race of oppressors and the
upcoming apocalypse.

Farrakhan
says that “the greatest single thing that I would hope to see in America is that
religious leaders would begin to teach and stress the moral values that make a
nation perpetually great, and stop compromising that of HIS prophets by what
we’d call modernism or humanism, that makes us compromise the very values that
make the nation great” (Arizona Republic, 1996: 3). Attacks on humanism, which
is equated with secularism, and modernity are staples of right-wing Christian
attacks on the “godlessness” and “moral decay” of contemporary society in the
U.S.[43]

When similarities are noted
between Farrakhan and leaders of the Christian Right, he does not discourage
this. “They’ve done a lot of comparing me with Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan is a
very honest person … He speaks with passion because he’s concerned about the
future of this country. Whether you agree with him or not—that’s entirely the
people’s choice—we need more people speaking forthrightly for the things and
against those things that are absolutely destroying this nation” (Arizona
Republic, 1996: 4).

The use
of the terms “fundamentalism” has been challenged by scholars who say it is a
misappropriated Protestant term turned “polemical” “representing an
essentialized anti-modernism” resulting in a faulty analytical and political
term which should be avoided; instead “differentiated and culturally specific
terms” should be employed (Nederveen-Pieterse, 1994: 2-6). While I agree that
placing concepts in context is necessary (if not mandatory) for them to retain
their usefulness, I disagree with those who would throw such a term out the
window. As Sahgal and Yuval-Davis (1994: 8) note there is a common ground in
discourses within fundamentalist movements. To ignore these commonalties, I
believe is short-sighted.

Similarly, the term “patriarchy,”
used by feminists since the 1960s “to refer to the systematic organization of
male supremacy and female subordination” has not been used in a “unified” way,
even by feminists (Stacey, 1993: 53). The patriarchy debate is ongoing:
Feminists continue to doubt the usefulness of a terms that has such different
meanings in different contexts, others, such as Mies (1986, cited in Stacey,
1993: 53) note that there is value in having a catch-all concept for the
systematic oppression of women. It is certainly easier to rally
round.

Sahgal
and Yuval-Davis arrive at a similar conclusion in their defense of the term
fundamentalism. “Politically, it is very important for WAF [Women Against
Fundamentalism] to use a term which is not specific to one movement such as
Islam, because this would support a more narrow and confined reading—a racist
usage of the term (although, this does not prevent us from using specific terms
when referring to specific movements),” they write, adding that the ability to
recognize a phenomena that has resonance with women who have different lived
experiences is very valuable. “This sense of common experience is fundamental
for political mobilizing and creates links across religious and cultural
specifics. As it does not deny difference in context and circumstances … Yes,
divergency is important; so is coalition politics” (1994: 9).

While many men, outside the NOI,
also believe that a strategy of increasing the percentage of male-breadwinner
families will solve most problems, Hooks for example, presents a very different
view of the “reality” of black women in contemporary society: “Most black
females have not been socialized to be ‘women’ in the traditional sexist
sense—that is, to be weak and/or subordinate. Had we been socialized this way
historically, most black communities and families would not have survived”
(1995a: 70). “It would be liberatory both to black males and females for us to
rethink whether appropriation of conventional sexist norms has advanced black
life. To expect black men to act as ‘protectors’ and ‘providers’ as a way of
earning the status of patriarch seems ludicrous given the economy, the shift in
gender roles, the inability of many black males to provide either economically
or emotionally for themselves, and their inability to protect themselves against
life-threatening white supremacist capitalist patriarchal assault, with which
they are all too often complicit—for example, black on black
homicide.”

We must
recognize that the discourse of the NOI helps to advance an agenda that is being
foisted on all women in the U.S., not just members of this black Muslim group.
By placing the blame for suffering on strong, independent women who deviate from
a patriarchal gender role, and by calling for their replacement with women who
fit a subservient, dependent “ideal” the NOI works in concert with those of all
ethnicities who seek to strengthen sexist patriarchal norms in the U.S. and
beyond. This cedes the dialogue regarding race relations to a men’s-club of
decision-makers.

Just as
the black nationalist movement lead by Marcus Garvey, which called for racial
separatism and “purity” was able to “come to an understanding” with the Ku Klux
Klan and other white racist groups in the 1930s (Pinkney, 1976: 48), so too does
the NOI’s ideology provide support for contemporary white racist, sexist,
homophobic Christian groups. The NOI says “We believe this is the time in
history for the separation of the so-called Negroes and the so-called white
Americans” (The Muslim Program”: 2). White supremacist groups, such as Aryan
Nation, have agreed. As Sahgal and Yuval-Davis note, “just because a political
movement has the ‘right enemy’, that does not automatically transform it into a
‘goody’” (1992: 6).

“Black
Islamic fundamentalism shares with the white Christian Right support for
coercive hierarchy, fascism, and a belief that some groups are inferior and
others superior, along with a host of other similarities. Irrespective of the
standpoint, religious fundamentalism brainwashes individuals to not think
critically or see radical politicization as a means of transforming their lives.
When people of color immerse themselves in religious fundamentalism, no
meaningful challenge and critique of white supremacy can surface. Participation
in a radical multiculturalism in any form is discouraged by religious
fundamentalism,” writes Hooks (1995a: 203).

“When Farrakhan pits black against
Jew, or when Jews become fixated on black anti-Semitism, they deny their shared
otherness in order to draw boundary markers that let them feel safer, they
imagine themselves in control,” writes Zillah Eisenstein (1996: 27).

In this case, I agree with Hooks,
that a quest for territory seems a “utopian fantasy.” It seems a panacea that
takes attention away from the difficult and complex issues that need to be dealt
with. “ … Many of our African nations have failed precisely because they lacked
a revolutionary vision for social changes that worked, and not because they
didn’t have a nation,” Hooks notes. “So, Black Americans must be very very
cautious in embracing the notion of a nation as the redemptive location. The
redemptive location lies in our radical politics and the strategies by which we
implement those radical politics—not with the formation of a nation” (Third
World Viewpoint, 1995:5). Additionally Hooks observes that Afrocentrism is no
remedy to Eurocentrism, and nationalism based on a generalized “African”
identity essentializes black life just as Eurocentrist notions create a
streamlined view of what white lived-experiences are (1995a: 243).

Pull-yourself-up-by the bootstraps
and self-help through strong morals echoes mainstream prescriptions to achieve a
stronger, more competitive United States. Certainly it is indistinguishable from
right-wing pundits who led the charge in the recent demolition of U.S. federal
programs that provide assistance to single mothers. The NOI’s emphasis on
“traditional” gender roles which favor two-parent families headed by a male
“breadwinner” and managed by a woman who fulfils the duties of faithful wife and
devoted mother echo the predominantly white Christian right “traditional family
values” agenda which has proved to be very influential in the political arena of
the 90s.

“It
should be more than clear if not from black life then from the experiences of
white folks, documented in feminist writings, that the patriarchal family
presents no model for liberation,” notes Hooks (1995a: 71).

NOI-style gender roles constrain
the ability of women to exercise agency. Such a “liberation” strategy, that
calls on women to take a backseat to other decision-makers and acquiesce to a
life spent in the domestic sphere, seems doomed to failure if real change is the
true goal. In addition to the other shortcomings of NOI ideology, as preached by
Minister Louis Farrakhan, I believe this aspect must be considered if a true
evaluation of their message is to take place.

Bibliography

Note: page numbers for Internet
resources represent page numbers on downloaded pages; not necessarily the pages
these articles appeared on in original texts.

Lincoln,
C.E. (1983) ‘The American Muslim Mission in the Context of American Social
History”, in The Muslim Community in North America, University of Alberta Press,
Edmonton, pgs. 215-233.

Lovell,
E. K (1983) ‘lslam in the United States: Past and Present” in Earle H. Waugh,
Bhah Abu-Laban, and Regula B. Qureshi, eds., The Muslim Community in North
America, University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, pgs. 93-110.

Muhammad,
J. undated, ‘The Nation of Islam vs. New York Post The fight against slander,
falsehood is on’ The Final Call Online Edition, three-page document available
via the Internet.

Muhammad,
T. (1996) ‘A Brief History on the origin of The Nation of Islam in America: A
Nation of Peace and Beauty’ March 28, paper delivered at the International
Symposium on Sufism, San Francisco, three-page document available via the
Internet.

Nation of
Islam, undated, ‘The Muslim Program’ three-page document available via the
Internet. Includes ‘What the Muslims Want’ and ‘What The Muslims
Believe.’

Source:
This paper was written as part of the Women’s Studies course while Nina Ascoly
was at the Institute of Social Studies in the Hague in 1997.

FOOTNOTES

[1] In 1984 when Jesse Jackson
journeyed to Syria to negotiate for the release of a U.S. pilot, Farrakhan went
with him, providing his Fruit of Islam as bodyguards. While Jackson’s support
for Palestinian right troubled Zionist sympathizers, it was his “Hymietown”
comment and defense by Farrakhan which caused a rift with some Jewish supporters
during his run for the presidency in 1987, and probably lead to a weakening of
the “rainbow coalition” of voting interest he claimed to be representing. He
subsequently failed to capture the Democratic nomination (Wills, 1990: 232-234).
Jackson took part in the Million Man March (MMM) (Monroe, 1996: 1).

[2] Reports on how many people
attended the MMM vary, as is usually the case with rallies in the U.S. capital,
where the National Parks Service or police tend to underrepresent attendance,
while those sponsoring events tend to overestimate. In this case the figures
ranged from 400,000 to 1,5 million (CNN, 1995:1). Not in dispute, though is that
the MMM drew an extremely large number of people to Washington, D.C.

[3] As head of the NAACP for
16-months, Chavis is credited with rejuvenating an organization perceived to be
increasingly middle class, stodgy and out-of-touch with the concerns of the
majority of black Americans. During his tenure, membership increased from 75,000
to 650,000 and networking with other organizations within the black community
(including the NOI) increased. Chavis appointed attorney Lewis Myers Jr., former
legal adviser to Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan, as his deputy director.
Chavis was forced to step down from his post in 1994 when it was revealed that
he had secretly paid an estimated $350,000 of NAACP funds for the out-of-court
settlement of a sexual harassment case filed by his former executive assistant
Mary Stansel. Prior to that, Chavis alienated black labor groups by lobbying in
favor of NAFTA, despite a national NAACP decision to oppose the trade pact.
Chavis also angered those involved in the environmental justice movement by
lobbying Congress in favor of legislation weakening requirements for polluters
to clean up contaminated sites (Daniels: 4).

[4] “In Atlanta a lecture by
Farrakhan outdrew a 1992 World Series game the same night. In Los Angeles last
October he filled the 16,500-seat Sports Arena,” one reporter noted in 1994. “In
New York City a December speech … drew 25,000 … This month in Chicago, when
black aldermen needed a celebrity speaker to raise funds for their legal defense
in a censorship case, they did not turn to Jackson or Chavis or Mfume but to
Farrakhan, the one black man they felt could fill any hall in town” (Henry: 2).
The references are to Rev. Jesse Jackson, civil rights activist, founder of
Operation PUSH in Chicago, and presidential contender; Benjamin Chavis,
discussed above; and Kweisi Mfume, Democratic congressman from Maryland and
former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, until his departure in February
1996 to take up the role of President and CEO of the NAACP. Mfume spoke at the MMM.

[5] Farrakhan is of the opinion
that he is misunderstood by many people in the U.S. or that his views are
misrepresented due to a lack of accurate information, therefore it is important
to note that this interview, which appeared in a mainstream daily newspaper, is
available at the Nation of Islam website.

[6] For example, among the “power
brokers” Farrakhan discusses meeting and conferring with are: President Rawlings
in Ghana, Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, former president of Zambia, President Moi of
Kenya, President Museveni of Uganda, John Garang, head of the Sudanese People’s
Liberation Army, Nelson Mandela of South Africa, and President Mobutu of Zaire
(Gates, 1996: 165, 167).

[7] While Farrakhan says he will
use the money to further voter registration (notoriously low among Western
industrialized countries, for example, only 54% of black voters cast ballots in
the 1992 presidential election, according the U.S. Bureau of the Census)
“humanitarian uses,” and “improving the economic lot of African-Americans,”
critics fear a move by Gadhafi to establish a stronghold within the United
States (Hurst, p.2). Travel bans to Libya have not prevented Farrakhan from
traveling there, according to news reports. If Farrakhan’s passport is not
stamped by Libyan officials, he is technically not in violation of the ban
(Hurst: 2). Farrakhan, along with his wife, daughter, Chavis, and other
colleagues, arrived in Tripoli on Aug. 28, 1996, received his award, telling
Gadhafi: “While I accept the honor of the prize, I will ask you to hold the
money until this matter is decided in a court of law” (NOI press release, Aug. 31, 1996).

[8] At the time of the decision,
Libya was one of seven such nations given this distinction by the U.S.
government (Hurst, 1996: 1). An executive order in effect since 1986 also
“freezes Libyan assets in the U.S. and prohibits transfers of funds ‘even when
those transfers are made for charitable, religious or humanitarian purposes.’”
(Hurst, 1996: 1). In addition, Gadhafi selected Farrakhan as the 1996 recipient
of a $250,000 humanitarian award, which, due to the U.S. government also remains
uncollected (NOI, Aug. 26, 1996, Hurst, 1996: 2).

[9] Today, the NOI is not
forthcoming with membership numbers. Membership has been estimated to range from 30,000 to 200,000 (Henry, 1994: 5).

[10] Much has been written about
the work of Malcolm X and the evolution of his beliefs. Unfortunately, a thorough account is beyond the scope of this paper.

[11] Elijah Muhammad had founded a
NOI newspaper called Muhammad Speaks. Marable notes
that analysis of black issues reveals that at the time Malcolm X began to change
his message, coverage of his beliefs was eliminated: “In 1962 there are
virtually no articles published on Malcolm X. By 1963, nothing. He is the main
spokesperson of this organization, and the Nation of Islam’s newspaper carries
not a word about him” (Marable, 1992: 6).

[12] “Malcolm broke with the logic
of political reformism,” writes Marable (1992: 7). “Criticizing the Negro middle
classes commitment to private enterprise, Malcolm also had learned on his trip
to Africa that black revolutionaries abroad had broken with their commitment to
corporate capitalism and defined the economics of liberation with the term
‘socialism’. Malcolm said: ‘You can’t have racism without capitalism. If you
find antiracists, usually they’re socialists or their political philosophy is
that of socialism’”. Marable also notes that Malcolm X was beginning to question
strict patriarchal gender roles, recognizing the struggle of women against
oppression: “He moves away from the blatant sexism of Islam is his later
development. He recognizes from his experiences in Africa that all progressive
nationalist movements have recognized the fundamental equality of women of color
… Malcolm says this in December 1964: ‘It’s noticeable that in the Third World
Societies, where they have put women in the closet and discouraged her from
getting sufficient education and don’t give her the incentive by allowing her
maximum participation in whatever area of the society in which she’s qualified,
they kill her incentive and kill her spirits” (quoted in Marable, 1992: 8).

[13] While the Mosque was meant to
deal with religious issues, the OAAU was set up as a secular organization, and
it was through this group that Malcolm X sought to mobilize people to petition
the United Nations, charging that the U.S. government had violated the human
rights of its black citizens (Pinkney, 1976: 70-72).

[14] In Jan. 1995,
thirty years after the killing, discussion of the link between Farrakhan and the
assassination of Malcolm X was revived due to FBI allegations that Qubilah
Shabazz, the 34-year-old daughter of Malcolm X, hired a hit man to kill
Farrakhan, in revenge for the assassination of her father. The credibility of
the charge was called into question due to the troubled history of the
government informant in the case, Michael Fitzpatrick, a former high school
classmate of Shabazz, as well as the FBI’s own involvement in the systematic
destabilization and destruction of civil rights groups and other organizations
involved in the black liberation movement (Van Biema, 1995: 1-3). It was
revealed that Fitzpatrick, a long-time informant and provocateur desperate to
escape prosecution on cocaine charges, had been paid $45,000 to target Shabazz.
The charge was dropped by May (CCR, 1995: 30).

In 1994, Farrakhan and the NOI filed suit against the New York Post, naming various other defendants
(including Post chairman Rupert Murdoch and
columnist Jack Newfield) charging libel and seeking $4.4 billion in “relief” for
an article and headlines referring to Betty Shabazz’s allegations of Farrakhan’s
involvement in her husband’s death and statements such as the following: “New evidence from FBI files has established that Farrakhan
was in the Newark temple of the NOI at the hour Malcolm was assassinated in
Harlem. He was supposed to be in Boston, where he was the chief minister.
Farrakhan drove from Boston to Newark at 1:30 a.m. on February 21, 1965,
according to FBI files. This is relevant because the four assassins named by
Thomas Hayer—who is still in prison for the murder—as his co-conspirators were
all members of the Newark mosque, which was allied with Farrakhan … Kenyatta
told the Post … that former Fruit of Islam leader
Ysef Shah admitted to him before his death last year that ‘Farrakhan was
personally involved in the planning of Malcolm X’s assassination” (quoted in J.
Muhammad: 1-3).

As Marable notes, the FBI had already infiltrated the NOI
by the 1940s, and their surveillance of Malcolm X in the 1960s is
well-documented (1992: 5). To what extent Farrakhan really was involved in the
plan to kill Malcolm X and whether or not the killing was orchestrated by the
FBI or CIA is still hotly debated (though Farrakhan does admit to assisting in
creating the “atmosphere” that facilitated his death, as noted in Gates, 1996,
p. 142). It is interesting to note that the NOI includes on their website some
FBI documents regarding the need to manipulate the direction of the group
following the death of Elijah Muhammad. Does this selective choice of FBI
documents point to an attempt to gain credibility with leftists who are familiar
with FBI COINTELPRO operations during the 1960s? Was the resurrection of the
link between Farrakhan and Malcolm X’s assassination shortly before the MMM
coincidental? Due to lack of space, I will leave this line of thought to be
taken up by conspiracy theorists.

[15] In his
history of the group, C. Eric terms it a “decultification” (1983: 224).

[16] Writing in
1963 about the NOI, Moynihan (discussed below) and Glazer note that they were
referred to as “Black Puritans” who looked down upon the sins of
indulgence—gambling, drinking, promiscuity—in favor of devotion to business as
the route to wealth and success (1963: 83). Under Warith Deen Muhammad the
American Muslim Mission was able to garner a $22 million Department of Defense
contract to manufacture military c-rations (Lincoln, 1983: 229).

[17] Wallace
called the Fruit of Islam (FOI) a “hooligan outfit, a hoodlum outfit” that
“viciously” beat men for failing to sell enough newspapers. “He [Wallace] was
shocked to learn upon assuming leadership that more than 10 believers were
killed ‘for no other reason than that they didn’t want the FOI completely
dominating their lives” (Mamiya, 1983: 243).

Mamiya also notes that after the split there were “rumors
of jihad between the Wallace and Farrakhan factions … ” and that both leaders
traveled with bodyguards. “Wallace Muhammad has explicitly told his followers to
ignore the Farrakhan faction … Farrakhan’s position is that ‘we will not be the
aggressors. But if they attack, the Holy Qur’an instructs us to fight back’”
(1983: 251-252). Reference is also made to the self-defense training that the
FOI have had and the prison background of many converts.

[18] The Nation of
Islam Security Agency was reportedly paid approx. $20 million by the Baltimore
Housing Authority to patrol federally-subsidized public housing complexes in the
Maryland capital. Though residents praised their efforts over five years,
Congressman Peter King of New York and various Jewish organizations successfully
lobbied to have the contracts severed, claiming that in their contacts with
residents the security forces were spreading “Farrakhan’s message of hate,” in
violation of federal anti-discrimination laws (Detroit News, 1995: 1).

[19] The Islamic
Society of North America, cites the 1994 Encyclopedia
Britannica’s estimates of more than 3.3 million Muslims residing in North
America. Haddad (cited in Lovell, 1983: 94) put the number of Muslims in the
U.S. alone, at 3 million in 1979.

[20] Item # 12 in
the NOI’s list of “What the Muslims Believe” states that “We believe that Allah
(God) appeared in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad, July, 1930; the long
awaited “Messiah” of the Christians and the “Mahdi” of the Muslims” (NOI, “The
Muslim Program,” 3).

[21] On this note,
Henry points to other groups that might fall into the same category as the NOI.
“Several of the 17 or more American black Muslim sects—including one in Atlanta
run by the ‘60s civil rights radical formerly known as H. Rap Brown—depart from
orthodoxy,” he writes (1994: 3).

[22] Farrakhan
explains that blacks are the most oppressed in the U.S., not native Americans
because some are still able to speak their language and know something of their
history (1996a: 2).

[24] The NOI is
currently active on college campuses. In February 1997 the 2nd Annual Nation of
Islam Student Association Summit, held in Chicago, attracted participants from
all over the U.S. from 75 colleges and universities, according to a NOI document
(NOI, “Successful Student Summit at Saviour’s Day 1997, 1997: 1). Attendance
figures were not available.

[25] Richard
Cloward and Frances Fox Piven define the belief in integration, in the U.S.
context, as the idea that people “ought to reside in the same neighborhoods, go
to the same schools, work together and play together without regard to race and,
for that matter, without regard to religion, ethnicity, or class” (quoted in
Rivers, 1995: 4). A major milestone in the battle for integration was the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision
which called for the desegregation of public schools, abolishing the prior
standard of “separate but equal” established by Plessey
v. Ferguson in 1896.

[26] “Leonard
Jeffries and Louis Farrakhan are widely regarded, even by such experts as Cornel
West, as representatives of the Black nationalist perspective. This is a serious
misconception. Jeffries and Farrakhan, along with Tony Martin, Khalid Muhammad,
and Frances Cress Welsing, represent the nationalism of fools. They are cynically anti-semitic, mean-spirited, and simply
incompetent … ,” writes Rivers. “They are all demagoguery, uniforms, bow ties,
and theater … Their public prominence reflects the leadership vacuum created by
a cosmopolitan intelligentsia lacking any pedagogical relationship to poor,
inner-city Blacks—the natural outcome of a bankrupt integrationist project”
(1995: 3-4).

[27] Note that
while emigration movements were perhaps the earliest manifestation of black
nationalism in the U.S., such movements were viewed skeptically by most blacks
because these movements were first organized and lead by whites. For example,
the American Colonization Society (ACS), formed by Congress in 1817, was
supported by many political leaders at the time. Free blacks feared that the
white-led and financed group would ultimately seek to deport all free blacks to
allow for slavery to proceed more smoothly. It was the ACS that purchased (with
Congressional funds) the land that was christened “Liberia.” By the outbreak of
the U.S. Civil War 13,000 African-Americans had been transported to Liberia
(Pinkney: 16-22). It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the issues of
exploitation, class and colonization that arose out of this appropriation of
African Territory.

[28] The African
Methodist Episcopal Church was founded in 1786 by Richard Allen, a former slave.
“This signaled the beginning of autonomous black Christian churches in the
United States,” according to Pinkney, who notes that previously, blacks seeking
to practice Christianity did so at white churches, in segregated areas (1976: 17).

[29] Farrakhan’s
Barbadian mother, uncle and Jamaican father were all “Garveyites” (Gates, 1996:
146, 148). The father of Malcolm X, a Baptist Minister killed when Malcolm was
six years old, was also a follower of Garvey (Pinkney, 1976: 65).

[30] Ironically,
the only “back to Africa” element put forth by Farrakhan these days appears to
be a repatriation plan for black criminals proposed to the Congressional Black
Caucus, almost the opposite of Garvey’s view that “ … We do not want all the
Negroes in Africa. Some are no good here, and naturally will be no good there”
(A.J. Garvey, 1968, cited in Pinkney: 47). According to a member of the caucus,
Farrakhan called for the transport of “prisoners and addicts to Africa as an
alternative to the chaos of the ghetto—and was hailed for offering creative
alternatives to standard treatment” (cited in Henry, 1994: 2).

[31] Later he
wrote that “miscegenation will lead to the moral destruction of both races, and
the promotion of a hybrid caste that will have no social standing or moral
background in a critical moral judgment of the life and affairs of the human
race” (quoted in A.J. Garvey, 1968, cited in Pinkney: 48).

[32] The phrase
“Black power” was coined by Stokely Carmichael: “The concept of Black Power
rests on a fundamental premise: Before a group can enter the open society, it
must first close ranks … [to] operate effectively from a bargaining position of
strength in a pluralistic society” (Carmichael and Hamilton, 1967, quoted in Pinkney: 64).

[33] The Black
Panther Party could be considered a revolutionary black nationalist group. As
Pinkney notes, Huey Newton, who along with Bobby Seale founded the Black
Panthers in 1966, “viewed the party as the successor to Malcolm X’s Organization
of Afro-American Unity” (p. 98). They differed from cultural nationalists,
especially with regard to race (Seale equated cultural nationalism with black
racism), viewing them as reactionary and an obstacle to black liberation. “They
were so engrossed in this cultural nationalism, they just hated white people
simply for the color of their skin,” said Seale, explaining his decision to drop
out of the Afro-American Association he had joined as a college student (Seale
1970, quoted in Pinkney: 123). “The cultural nationalist seeks refuge by
retreating to some ancient African behavior and culture, and he refused to take
into consideration those forces that are acting both on his own group and on the
world as a whole … We [the Black Panthers] feel no need to retreat to the past,
although we respect our African heritage,” wrote Newton in 1969 (quoted in
Pinkney: 123). Linda Harrison, of the East Oakland, California branch of the
Black Panther Party summed up their opinion of this rival ideology: “Cultural
nationalism manifests itself in many ways but all of these manifestations are
essentially grounded in one fact; a universal denial and ignoring of the present
political, social, and economic realities and the concentration on the past as a
frame of reference … And cultural nationalism is most always based on racism. We
hear ‘Hate Whitey’ and ‘Kill the Honkey’” (1969, quoted in Pinkney:
124).

[34] The Conyers
Bill, introduced into the House of Representatives in Feb., 1995, is known as
H.R. 891—Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African Americans, and
would investigate the impact of slavery in the U.S. between 1619 and 1865 and
make recommendations for “appropriate remedies.” The 1994 Federal Crime Bill, is
a striking example of racist/classist sentencing in the U.S. For example, under
the bill, first-time possession of more than 5 grams of crack is punishable with
five years in jail, while an equal amount of powder cocaine garner no jail time
(Caravan, 1995).

[35] Perhaps this
is out of deference to an audience he acknowledges includes many ex-servicemen,
Cold-War warriors (for example, Farrakhan, 1996a: 3). It is interesting to note
that item #10 of the NOI’s “What the Muslims must Believe” states that members
should not be forced to take part in wars that take human lives because “we have
nothing to gain from it unless America agrees to give us the necessary territory
where in many have something to fight for” (NOI, “The Muslim Program”: 3).

[36] Farrakhan, in
his MMM speech, where the three basic themes were “atonement, reconciliation and
responsibility,” reiterated the notion that it is the duty of men to lead: “Our
priority call to Black men to stand up and assume this new and expanded sense of
responsibility is based on the realization that the strength and resourcefulness
of the family and the liberation of the people require it; as some of the most
acute problems facing the Black community within are those posed by Black males
who have not stood up; that the caring and responsible father in the home; the
responsible and future-focused male youth; security in and of the community, the
quality of male/female relations, and the family’s capacity to avoid poverty and
push the lives of its members forward all depend on Black men’s standing up … ”
(Million Man March Mission Statement, 1995: 2).

[37] That women are sacred wombs implies to me that access
to birth control and abortion would be constricted within NOI ideology. I have
not found specific references to these issues in the current NOI documents,
though there are references to prohibitions in the past. Ross, citing a 1977
report by Litttlewood, reports that in the 1960s when abortion was still illegal
“several birth control clinics were invaded by Black Muslims associated with The
Nation of Islam, who published cartoons in Muhammad Speaks that depicted bottles
of birth control pills marked with skull and crossbones, or graves of unborn
Black infants” (1993: 153). During the ‘60s groups like Urban League and NAACP
were against family planning and saw reproduction as a way to gain power, writes
Ross, adding that some cultural nationalist also equated birth control with
genocide: “The Black Power conference … in 1967, organized by Amiri Baraka,
passed an anti-birth control resolution.” Only the Black Panthers supported
“free abortions and contraceptives on demand” (Ward, 1986, cited in Ross: 153)
though this was not accepted by all factions within the group.

[38] “We want
equal education—but separate schools up to 16 for boys and 18 for girls on the
condition that the girls be sent to women’s colleges and universities,” states
item #9 of “What the Muslims Want” (NOI, “The Muslim Program”:
2).

[39] For more on
this controversy, from the perspective of the NOI, see the three-part series
“Racism and the Anti-Farrakhan Jewish Rage,” available at the NOI website. Also
available online from the NOI is “Farrakhan and the Jewish Rift: How it all
Started,” (1994) four-page document. For an analysis of the state of
Black/Jewish relations in the U.S. see Jews and Blacks:
Let the Healing Begin by Cornel West and Michael Lerner (Plume, 1996), Hooks
(1995a) and Eisenstein (1996).

[40] On August 22,
1996 U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Conciliation Act, which amends the food stamp program and
abolishes AFDC. The “reform” calls for abstinence education, requires single
teenage-mothers seeking assistance to live in adult-supervised households,
requires paternity information from single mothers seeking assistance, and
denies most benefits to immigrants (legal and illegal). The bill also sets
lifetime limits on benefits and requires some recipients to “work off” benefits
doing unpaid labor. The stated goals of the legislation were “preventing and
reducing out-of wedlock pregnancies” and encouraging the formulation and
maintenance of two-parent families” (H.R. 3734, Sec. 103, Title 1: Block Grants
for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).

Historically, the issue of economic assistance to women has
been shaped by stereotypical assumptions about the sexuality of the poor and a
“pathology” of the “underclass.” Welfare recipients have been characterized as
lazy women with uncontrollable sexual appetites, undereducated, who breed on in
an attempt to receive more and more benefits —criminals out to take advantage of
hard-working taxpayers. But it is racism that has played perhaps the largest
role in this debate. Reagan’s infamous “welfare queen” was no doubt visualized
by many to be a loud-talking fat black woman with a brood of babies.

In 1965, as Assistant Secretary of Labor, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan authored a now infamous report in which he sought to explain rising
dependency on AFDC benefits among black women despite decreasing unemployment
among black men. He concluded that the dominance of wives over husbands caused
the break-up of black families—men were devalued, in Moynihan’s eyes, and it was
matriarchy that was responsible for black poverty. AFDC was functioning as a
subsidy for broken families and facilitating a gender role reversal in the black
community, he believed (Peterson and Brown, 1994: 96-98). In reality, the
welfare recipients of the 1990s are mostly children (in 1994, of the 14.2
million people on welfare, 9.6 million were children) and women who were fleeing
domestic violence (82% of women receiving some form of assistance had
experienced “severe physical or sexual assault”) (1996 Green Book, U.S. Ways and
Means Committee, p. 2: NOW (1996) Legislative Update, Sept. 13, p. 5).

[41] Howard
University, founded in 1867 and located in Washington, D.C., is a prestigious
“historically black” university that, according to its promotional information,
boasts of “producing more African Americans with advanced degrees than any other
institution in the world.

[42] Reed also
takes some black feminists to task for their “anti-miscegenetic attitudes” as
witnessed by him at a conference on gender issues, specifically noting their
“ugly and tasteless” comments and “smirking” regarding Clarence Thomas’ marriage
to a white woman (1995: 120).

[43] Specifically,
these charges are often made in the context of education. For more on the
Christian right and their efforts to censor classroom materials that they
perceive to be inappropriate, see for example: People for the American Way
(1996) “Teaching Fear. The Religious Right’s Campaign against Sexuality
Education,” 18-page document; NARAL (1996) “The Right Wing in the Classroom: The
Rise of Fear-Based Sexuality Education,” four page document; and Nation Alert
(1994) “Censorship, Education, and the Religious Right,” Oct., vol. 1, no. 8,
five-page document—all are available via the Internet.